Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Try it and see. X-Plane [x-plane.com] lets you fly on Mars [x-plane.com]. Yes, there's a Linux version too, and you can find a bunch of electric (and/or rocket) aircraft for Mars on X-Plane.org [x-plane.org].

Yes. [nasa.gov] Link is to a flight test on Earth in as-close-as-we-can-get Mars-like atmospheric/gravitational tradeoff conditions of a prototype Mars aircraft. In fact, that is probably what NASA intends this design to be used for.

I wonder where most of the technology is driven, by large scale commercial operations like Boeing etc, or the smaller scale university departments and independent efforts. Most of the new Dreamliner "concepts" like the composite materials are something sport gliders have been pioneering for decades. Hopefully we'll see some trickle-up from this, or at least encourage some good engineering.

There are probably a lot of parallel paths. Composite technology was well-known, but was until recently not able to support the requirements for aircraft weighing and transporting several tons. While I don't expect this kind of electric technology to replace the jet turbines of commercial airliners (it'd be like running a cruise ship off of a bank of batteries), there might be some things that migrate up into the regional propeller aircraft.

Composite aircraft components have been used in military aircraft for quite some time. I believe the AV-8 Harrier of the 1980s is one example. While these aircraft may not have the mass of a commercial airliner keep in mind their high G maneuvering. The loads/stresses on these smaller aircraft may be comparable or greater than those on a commercial airliner.

I'd also look at the various civilian spacecraft efforts going on. They seem more innovative than the traditional aerospace companies. Of course to be fair these traditional aerospace behemoths have been working to NASA specs and have not done anything on their own like the little guys out at Mohave and elsewhere.

To me it's really worth it to help out Blue Origin a bit just to know if their approach can be done right now because it would be a game changer. Smoking craters are to be expected and don't bother me.

I wonder where most of the technology is driven, by large scale commercial operations like Boeing etc, or the smaller scale university departments and independent efforts. Most of the new Dreamliner "concepts" like the composite materials are something sport gliders have been pioneering for decades.

You've forgotten (if you in fact knew) that composites have been used for missile motor cases (starting with the Polaris A-2), and for aircraft flight control surfaces and stabilizers, and other such applications

Repeating the same failed arguments over and over does not make them true. There are tons of minerals in space, and many things space are entirely possible. Space elevators are possible if we can scale up carbon nanotubes, which is something which has been progressing very nicely recently. However, space elevators aren't the best way to do it, a launch loop is perfectly doable right now, it just requires the investment to get off the ground.

You're right, because there have been no advances in material technology since 1970.

If you can explain to me the difference between the fan and a turbine on a jet engine, I'll be glad to lay some knowledge on you. Otherwise, you are just wrong about the state of the art of composite structures.

The cost to build and repair composites had outweighed the weight benefits that composites gave for commercial vehicles. Lots of structural research of composites has been done in many unrelated fields (boats, cars, helmets, bullet proof vests,...) a small fraction of that knowledge came from gliders. Composites have been around for a long time the sr-71 used them. Gliders are more of a proving ground for composites.

The X-Prize was for going into space. According to NASA, space doesn't exist anymore, so aviation only includes the blue sky. Its like those companies or governments that ignore predecessors when they claim they are the first to do something because it sounds better that way and people forget anyways.

So instead of paying for fuel you end up paying about the same in 'wear' on your battery pack. You might think "but it's good for the carbon footprint, environment, reducing the peak oil problem, etc" but it isn't.

The money you spend on the battery pack goes to fund the fuel for the large diesel engines used to help get the raw materials out of the ground in Bolivia, shipping and so on. End of life Li-Ion batteries cannot be easily recycled into new Li-Ion batteries either. So really they'd be better of

So cell phones, laptops, cordless tools, wheel chairs, or medical equipment wouldn't benefit from better batteries and wouldn't pay handsomely for the technology. Electric vehicles are a drop in the bucket of all the applications that would benefit from a better battery. The answer to your wonder is NO this technology is moving at a quick pace but the constraints of quick recharge, longevity, mass production considerations, and costs of the raw materials all contribute to making this problem a very difficu

Electric vehicles can benefit from upgrades in battery tech even if it's a radically different electricity storage medium (say a supercapacitor). Electrons are electrons, motors don't care if the wattage comes from a LiPo, LiAir, Supercap, NiMH, NiCad, or even lead acid...Besides, in 3-4 years we'll have Mr Fusions and our electric planes and cars will be ready for a drop-in replacement. Combustion vehicles will require a major retrofit.

Combustion vehicles would generally need an entirely new engine if someone discovered a more energy dense fuel.

But you're obviously neglecting the energy required to refine the jet fuel. And the fuel required for all the employees at the refinery to get to work. And the fuel required at the farms that produced the cereal for those workers' breakfasts. And the fuel required to power the turtles all the way down.

Or maybe the original metric made the most sense for head-to-head comparisons, and you won't be as nit-picky in the future. Though that's a lot to ask of slashdotters.

Interesting to see how many NASA and DoD contracts they've identified that are essentially trying to crowdsource innovative, cost-effective solutions that improve the aerospace performance envelope.

Big budgets and high-caliber engineering skill and equipment are great for developing a concept, but unfortunately, innovation isn't a skill we teach well in school yet, and the need for innovative approaches are at the core of these problems. I really hope these programs have success!

Peregrine falcons can reach over 200 MPH in a dive.They get their own fuel.They are self replicating and have amazing eyesight.They can be trained.While they're not naturally distance fliers, then can convert their insane dive speed to distance.

Why spend millions developing fragile, limited, little planes?Spend tens of thousands training a bunch of birds, and strap a camera to them.They last for years, are undetectable by radar, and are unremarkable when actually detected.

Ok how about Titan. We should build (train?) a Peregrine Falcon ship big enough to fly down to Titan and scoop up a crap-ton of hydrocarbons. Then fly it back to Earth and park it at a refinery and profit! I think it should take only about 900,000 falcons plus a few thousand for attrition.

You should get to work on breeding falcons that can carry 4 people, and let us know how it goes. Since aircraft in the competition were allotted the equivalent of one gallon of fuel per passenger per 200 miles, a vehicle that carries no passengers would be allotted no fuel.

If the goal is automation and size, we need to stop with the fixed wing bullshit.If the goal is speed and flight duration, we've got larger, high-altitude craft that already fit the bill.

Not every competition is about war and spying. This contest is designed to improve fuel efficiency in passenger aircraft. Not automation, not size, not speed, not duration. Efficiency.

At the same time the article states that they achieved >400 passenger miles per gallon. Additionally, if you check the rules, they were also required to carry 200 lbs per seat in the plane. (17 http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_GFC/GFC.TA.07.28.09.pdf [cafefoundation.org] ) I'm actually more impressed that they were able to pull this off with a decent carrying capacity.